Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science. Believing the Bible is the perfect Spiritual Guide is an altogether different thing… and I think you are arguing that above - but it is not a valid argument in this Wattzian situation.

This is the stumbling block right here, I think.

Let’s take Boyle’s Law. How does an inerrantist view of the Bible create a conflict with Boyle’s Law (to name just one of many convenient examples)?

Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science. Believing the Bible is the perfect Spiritual Guide is an altogether different thing… and I think you are arguing that above - but it is not a valid argument in this Wattzian situation.

This is the stumbling block right here, I think.

Let’s take Boyle’s Law. How does an inerrantist view of the Bible create a conflict with Boyle’s Law (to name just one of many convenient examples)?

I’m not sure what your example is supposed to tell us.

But, seems to me an innerant view of the Bible seems to…
... make it impossible for believers to get their heads around the reality of evolution.
{without wrapping one’s head around the concept of our planet spending billions of years forming and developing - it’s impossible to wrap one’s head around the complexities and dynamics of our Global Heat Distribution Machine.}

... make people think “God” is in control of the future and plans to destroy all this anyways; so we need not worry about what we are doing to our planet

... make people think humanity can’t possibly be a destructive evolutionary force; after all “God” said multiply like rats and subjugate and consume all.

... make people believe in a self-created fairly tale lord and master who’s whispering into their minds; blocking them from rational examination of Earth’s processes.

It is supposed to show the absurdity of your assertion that “Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science.

Climate change is like Boyle’s Law in that there is no apparent reason, in principle, why a creationist, even a young-earth creationist, could not argue the science on a scientific basis.

But, seems to me an innerant view of the Bible seems to…
... make it impossible for believers to get their heads around the reality of evolution.

Pish-posh. It’s commonplace for an inerrantist to accept evolution as a process embedded in the design of the universe. “Inerrantist” and “Wooden-literalist” are not necessarily synonyms.

... make people think “God” is in control of the future and plans to destroy all this anyways; so we need not worry about what we are doing to our planet

Relevant how to the discussion of climate change science?

... make people think humanity can’t possibly be a destructive evolutionary force; after all “God” said multiply like rats and subjugate and consume all.

That’s a laughable straw man and even if it was true it would likewise provide no reason why an the individual could not discuss the science of climate change.

... make people believe in a self-created fairly tale lord and master who’s whispering into their minds; blocking them from rational examination of Earth’s processes.

Isn’t that just an excuse for pre-judging the debate? As I explained above, if Mann thinks he can win the debate and positively affect public acceptance by that strategy, then Spencer’s lack of a rational grasp of the reality of the earth’s processes provides a heightened attraction for the debate, all other things being equal.

... indicated a frightful amount of hubris

Again, hubris in one’s opponent is a reason to engage the debate. Pride does come before a fall—don’t we agree on that? You’re providing another reason to engage the debate, not avoid it.

You’ve got me repeating myself: If defeating the opposition in debate can increase public acceptance of Mann’s views on climate change then you’re not offering any reason at all why he should avoid the debate. Earlier, you mentioned some rational reasons, including the desire to dedicate time to science rather than debate. Mann will appear more rational if he publicly uses such rational reasons for avoiding the debate. Using personal attacks makes his position look weaker to those who do not agree with him already (allies may buy Mann’s expressed reasoning with enthusiasm, as you appear to do).

Mr. Watt, judging from the post we’ve looked at, appears to understand public communications rather well. He sees the weakness in Mann’s rhetoric and exploits it. And he has a good point. Mann’s answer at best suggests that the outcome of the debate would prove equivocal for the undecided persons in the audience regardless of the merits of Mann’s position. Watt could argue fallaciously that the reluctance proves that Mann’s argument would lose, but Watt stops well short of doing that, so far as I can tell.

At the bottom line, Mann’s not playing effectively to the undecided middle. And bluntly, you’re not either. Perhaps you get the most enthusiastic feedback for your posts when they’re hard-hitting and expressed in something beyond the calm language of logic and rationality (that’s one reason I can imagine you’re motivated to share them here among a (mostly!) friendly audience). On the plus side, there’s a place for that. But if your goal is to swing the opinions of climate change agnostics and skeptics then I’d question whether you’re going about things the right way.

... make people believe in a self-created fairly tale lord and master who’s whispering into their minds; blocking them from rational examination of Earth’s processes.

Isn’t that just an excuse for pre-judging the debate? As I explained above, if Mann thinks he can win the debate and positively affect public acceptance by that strategy, then Spencer’s lack of a rational grasp of the reality of the earth’s processes provides a heightened attraction for the debate, all other things being equal.

... indicated a frightful amount of hubris

Again, hubris in one’s opponent is a reason to engage the debate. Pride does come before a fall—don’t we agree on that? You’re providing another reason to engage the debate, not avoid it.

You’ve got me repeating myself: If defeating the opposition in debate can increase public acceptance of Mann’s views on climate change then you’re not offering any reason at all why he should avoid the debate. Earlier, you mentioned some rational reasons, including the desire to dedicate time to science rather than debate. Mann will appear more rational if he publicly uses such rational reasons for avoiding the debate. Using personal attacks makes his position look weaker to those who do not agree with him already (allies may buy Mann’s expressed reasoning with enthusiasm, as you appear to do).

Mr. Watt, judging from the post we’ve looked at, appears to understand public communications rather well. He sees the weakness in Mann’s rhetoric and exploits it. And he has a good point. Mann’s answer at best suggests that the outcome of the debate would prove equivocal for the undecided persons in the audience regardless of the merits of Mann’s position. Watt could argue fallaciously that the reluctance proves that Mann’s argument would lose, but Watt stops well short of doing that, so far as I can tell.

At the bottom line, Mann’s not playing effectively to the undecided middle. And bluntly, you’re not either. Perhaps you get the most enthusiastic feedback for your posts when they’re hard-hitting and expressed in something beyond the calm language of logic and rationality (that’s one reason I can imagine you’re motivated to share them here among a (mostly!) friendly audience). On the plus side, there’s a place for that. But if your goal is to swing the opinions of climate change agnostics and skeptics then I’d question whether you’re going about things the right way.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to claim - that there is no contradiction between the bible and science?

As for my cynicism towards Dr. Spencer and anyone who feels they personally understand the Word and Will of “GOD” - what can I say - sounds crazy to me. Also sounds like a pretty clear definition for Hubris to me.

As for biblical inerrancy - I don’t have the time, fortunately, other have taken the time to write up some interesting observations:

Mr. Watt, judging from the post we’ve looked at, appears to understand public communications rather well. He sees the weakness in Mann’s rhetoric and exploits it. And he has a good point. Mann’s answer at best suggests that the outcome of the debate would prove equivocal for the undecided persons in the audience regardless of the merits of Mann’s position. Watt could argue fallaciously that the reluctance proves that Mann’s argument would lose, but Watt stops well short of doing that, so far as I can tell.

At the bottom line, Mann’s not playing effectively to the undecided middle. And bluntly, you’re not either. Perhaps you get the most enthusiastic feedback for your posts when they’re hard-hitting and expressed in something beyond the calm language of logic and rationality (that’s one reason I can imagine you’re motivated to share them here among a (mostly!) friendly audience). On the plus side, there’s a place for that. But if your goal is to swing the opinions of climate change agnostics and skeptics then I’d question whether you’re going about things the right way.

I have no idea what your point was with the poll you linked.

And obviously we’ve all been going at it the wrong way,
considering that absolutely nothing of consequence has been done these past decades to address humanity’s unsustainable population growth and greenhouse gas injections into our atmosphere - since openly realizing the seriousness of the problems we were creating for our selves as far back as the 1970s !

But, a good deal of that problem has to do with a well crafted campaign of Manufacturing Doubt through any PR means possible. A campaign that holds to no rules of evidence or engagement.

A constructive debate demands a level playing field, a landscape of trust and respect. Along with mutually agreeable guidelines of behavior and evidence.

Scientific consensus skeptics have shown repeatedly that fidelity to the truth and mutual respect along with some introspection and self-skepticism are totally absent from their own world views.

Furthermore, they love drama and demonizing, {as repeatedly proven by Mr. Taylor’s own extreme, almost paranoid, Forbes articles. Same sorts of tactics used by Spencer, Watts, McIntyre and other climate science deniers}.

Scientists aren’t into any of that stuff -
ignore real facts, avoid questions, attack with misdirection,

You’re done - times up!!!

BS and salesmanship and deceptive wordsmithing is NOT their style. They don’t have the time - life is too short! If you don’t have any integrity and base honesty they don’t have the time or interest.

If thats true someone should show him the “misconceptions of evolutions” page on the University of California’s website

Yea Abdul, posting URLs can be a little tricky over here. {My suggestion if one way don’t work, play with it and there’s probably another approach that will.}

Looked at the links interesting stuff, but I’ll bet Roy Spencer knows all about that stuff, just like deep down I believe he understands climate science - he’s just got that mental divide that won’t allow his ego & ideology to be subjugated to his rational side.

I did that ages ago, noting that Mann’s words that you quoted constitute a fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Having done that, I can refer back to Mann’s statement without somebody jumping to the conclusion that I’m putting words in Mann’s mouth.

Or maybe not.

I think I’ve made my point. You erred, and you should correct the error (I’m not going to police you on it. You say you’ve corrected it. If so, good). I posted the survey data so that you could see the state of public opinion on climate change. Your approach to arguing your position has a number of weaknesses if you’re trying to sway those in the middle. If you’re not worried about swaying those in the middle, then you can safely ignore my criticisms. Cheers.

I did that ages ago, noting that Mann’s words that you quoted constitute a fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Having done that, I can refer back to Mann’s statement without somebody jumping to the conclusion that I’m putting words in Mann’s mouth.

Or maybe not.

I think I’ve made my point. You erred, and you should correct the error (I’m not going to police you on it. You say you’ve corrected it. If so, good). I posted the survey data so that you could see the state of public opinion on climate change. Your approach to arguing your position has a number of weaknesses if you’re trying to sway those in the middle. If you’re not worried about swaying those in the middle, then you can safely ignore my criticisms. Cheers.

=========================================================

Excuse me for yelling… but I think this was still ringing in my ears

Bryan - 03 April 2013 09:46 AM

... make people believe in a self-created fairly tale lord and master who’s whispering into their minds; blocking them from rational examination of Earth’s processes.

Isn’t that just an excuse for pre-judging the debate? As I explained above, if Mann thinks he can win the debate and positively affect public acceptance by that strategy, then Spencer’s lack of a rational grasp of the reality of the earth’s processes provides a heightened attraction for the debate, all other things being equal.

... indicated a frightful amount of hubris

Again, hubris in one’s opponent is a reason to engage the debate. Pride does come before a fall—don’t we agree on that? You’re providing another reason to engage the debate, not avoid it.

Guess if you want to see Mann’s statements of clear facts, highlighting the disparity in scientific integrity between Spencer’s approach to science and Mann’s - guess you will… also please keep in mind it isn’t like that statement is all there’s to it… a lot of nasty history you are conveniently ignoring… got rolled into Mann’s short rejection of the idea of “debating” (read public circus) a character like Spencer and at FOX of all places.

What about the massive debate that’s been raging within the scientific community these past decades - the REAL DEBATE, where constructive outcomes and learning is the golden goal - the scientific debate that makes it beyond clear what we are doing it our life sustaining atmosphere and biosphere???
~ ~ ~

The flaw in your neat sounding reasoning is the reality of the situation and the history of Spencer and Watts in the public “debate”.

These “manufactures of doubt” have become so adept at the art of the ‘rhetorical winning mean everything’ debates.
It is a PR debate where one side is expected to adhere to rules of ethics and engagement and the other side isn’t bound by any of those constraints and only has winning the debate and muddling the questions/answers in the public mind.

The debate among scientists
This brings me back to the question of why real scientists won’t debate “Climate Science Skeptics”

A constructive debate demands a level playing field, a landscape of trust and respect. Along with mutually agreeable guidelines of behavior and evidence.

Scientific consensus skeptics such as Mr. Watts, Dr. Spencer, FOX “news” network, have shown repeatedly that fidelity to the truth and mutual respect along with some introspection and self-skepticism are totally absent from their own world views. Furthermore, they love drama and demonizing.

They don’t have the time - life is too short! If you don’t have any integrity and base honestly they don’t have any time or interest.
That, and more, is plenty enough reason for serious scientists to stay away from Watts/Spencer/LordMonckton style mud fighting… er “debates” wink, wink.

And that my dear friend is why it isn’t reasonable to expect serious scientists to get into a fake political debate, with rhetorical experts who idea of winning is to totally muddle understanding rather than to help clarify and learn!

This then leads the question “does the former interpretation make sense”. That depends on philophical background.
David Hume would have argued if it occured we can never prove it (Bart Ehrman seems to argue similar).
Anthony flew would say that there is such a being who could do this, but such a being does not dwelve in such affairs. (I could be wrong about the details of these two philosophers)

But regardless, to answer your question:

No, the quran does not say “Jews are from apes”

Signature

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.
Quran (112: 1-4)

What about those talking trees that hate Jews who hide behind them with the exception of that one special Jew hiding tree. Muslims are supposed to kill the Jews before the end of time will come, but if they can’t get the ones behind the tree ... What a delimma!